The Conflicting Ethics of Selling and Negotiating

Blair identifies the differences between the ethics of selling expertise and the three schools of bargaining ethics, and what happens when we don’t adapt our bargaining approach to match our opponents in the game of negotiation.

Links

“The Conflicting Ethics of Selling & Negotiating” article by Blair Enns on WinWithoutPitching.com

Transcript

David C Baker: Blair, this is a great topic.

Blair Enns: Yes. [chuckles]

David: I was reading through this like, "Oh, man, this is really good." Immediately I'm thinking, "Oh, I wonder where I fit," like in the three different options you give later. Immediately I thought too of the tensions that I feel sometimes. The whole topic is the conflicting ethics of selling and negotiating. In other words, there's a case to be made that we could view our ethics a little bit differently in these two stages, selling and negotiating.

Blair: Yes, that's right. I'm glad you like it. It was really therapeutic for me to write. It reinforced to me this idea you and I have talked about on at least one episode before, and we've talked about lots over the years in our private conversations, is that I think to be a good thinker, you have to write. You have to because writing is the process of sorting through what you think you know, what's missing, organizing it.

I committed to writing on different negotiating styles, and then as I sat down to write, somehow I got into selling styles or selling schools versus negotiating, and I realized, "Oh, there's a reason why I'm so emotionally triggered at what are quite often viewed as standard negotiating tactics. As an advisor to my clients, I should be calm and removed and be able to give them advice on how to handle certain situations."

There have been situations where I've been talking to my client, and they've explained to me what their client's negotiator, or typically a procurement person, has done or said, and I just lose it. It's like, "That is not the position you need to be in as an advisor." I'm supposed to be the adult in the room, the calm one without any baggage. On this topic, I'm easily emotionally triggered, and writing this post really led me to see why.

David: Yes. It's like you've got this big red button painted on your forehead. You can't see the buttons, but those of us who know you well, it's like, "Ah, it's about time I got a-

Blair: [laughs]

David: -rise out of Blair, smack this button."

Blair: Yes.

David: Back to your point about the writing, I'll just do this briefly because I know we're not really getting into the topic, but it's so interesting to me, like in your case, for decades now, you've been a leading expert on selling and so on, and yet, as deeply as you've thought about that, as many times as you've spoken on it, you still have new thoughts that come up. I think that's what makes an extended time of searching so interesting because you're always learning. It's like, "How could I have not seen this for decades? It's just odd."

Blair: If I hadn't started to write about it because I thought I knew enough about it, I wouldn't have learned what I learned.

David: Yes. One of the things that makes this topic really interesting to me is you stake out the high ground. It's very intentional on your part, the one without pitching ethics. The idea of stepping down or stepping on a different mountain almost riles you up more because you've taken such a public stand on stuff, right?

Blair: I think that's it. Yes. I hold what it means to sell to a high ethical standard. I think anybody who's selling, certainly creativity in our audience, but in the broader audience of anybody who's selling expertise of any kind where the outcome of the sale is an engagement where you will be working with that client, either in an expert advisor role or an expert practitioner role, if you're selling expertise of any kind, then it's incumbent on you to show up like the expert in the sale and to operate at a high ethical standard. That standard doesn't necessarily apply to negotiating depending on who you're negotiating with.

David: Yes. That's the big revelation. I'll bet you've had clients who, after they've worked with you for a while, you'll have a different sort of a conversation with them, and they'll confess later, not at the time it happened but later, that one of the reasons they wanted to work with you is because they wanted to figure out how they could get that same confidence or have that same high standard in selling that doesn't smack of desperation at all. That's one of the things that attracts people to working with you, right? You hear that from time to time?

Blair: Yes, I think so. I'm a meta salesperson. I sell selling and I'm a meta pricer. I price pricing. When I'm selling and I'm pricing in a sales conversation, I am keenly aware that people are observing how it is that I'm showing up in that sale, and they are trying it on for themselves. I think at the end of the day, if somebody ends up hiring us

after talking to me, or more often these days, Shannyn, a big part of it is that we have modeled for them how they should behave in the sale. It resonates with them and they think, "Yes, I want to show up that way. I want to do what you're doing."

David: Then to say, "Okay, let's think a little bit differently about bargaining."

Blair: Yes, now throw it all out the window.

David: Yes, just kidding about all that.

Blair: It's war. [laughter]

David: Just like there's various schools in selling, there's various schools of bargaining too. Talk us through those three. I want to know where you think you fit, and then I'll tell you if you're right or wrong.

Blair: Yes, of course. There's a guy named Richard Shell. He's a Wharton Business school professor and he's written a book called Bargaining for Advantage. I've skimmed the book, I've referenced it, I've listened to it on Blinkist. I don't read all these books on selling and negotiating cover to cover, so I don't want to give the impression that I know the model inside and out, but I've been referencing it for a few years. He's got three schools of bargaining ethics.

As I was sitting down to write about these three schools of bargaining ethics, and I think I said to you on a previous episode, "Hey, let's talk about that," it occurred to me that as I was describing the first school, which is called the idealist school-- I'll describe it and then I'll back up to my approach to selling because my approach to selling and the approach that I advocate to our clients is clearly in this idealist school. An idealist is just, as it sounds, somebody who's got these high ideals. They see a negotiation as, the line here is, a serious consequential act. These acts have no exemptions from the rules or conventions that govern a regular conversation in society, or in a fair and just society.

An idealist thinks everybody should treat each other fairly, there should be justice in the world. That view of the world has implications on how they show up, but that view of the world, they believe, applies absolutely to any negotiating. I think my approach to selling expertise is squarely in that idealist school, so I identify quite strongly. Some other attributes for the people in the idealist school, they place a premium on truth, honesty, and transparency.

They're always playing the long game. It's not about what can I get in the short term. They're not willing to sacrifice the relationship. The relationship is a priority. As a result, they tend to strive for win-win outcomes. I think all of those statements apply to my view on how selling expertise should be done. I'm fully aligned. Not just me, but the approach that I and my team advocate in terms of selling is fully aligned with this idealist school of negotiating or bargaining ethics, as Richard Shell calls it.

David: Yes. Second one is the poker school. [chuckles] This is the perfect title too because this is where we are sanctioning liars and we are rewarding liars, right? [chuckles]

Blair: Yes, and adherence to the poker school would push back on that, especially as somebody like me, an idealist, I hear bargaining ethics. What is your ethical standard? It's taken me a while to get my head around this. If you're an idealist, you don't think it's appropriate to lower your ethics in certain situations. One of your ethics might be you never lie, you always tell the truth.

What about when you're playing poker? What about when you're in certain fun scenarios? In a game, a table game like poker or something else, there are different rules that govern that game that do not necessarily govern our behavior in larger society. Somebody who is in the poker school of bargaining ethics, they don't see themselves as any less ethical.

David: Yes. The ethics are defined by playing by the rules of that game.

Blair: The context.

David: Yes. You might feel like it's totally fine to bluff, but you would say it'd cross the line if you take an extra card or you drop something. The ethics are still there, they're just to the rules, and the rules allow you to do what might seem wrong to an idealist, but really isn't.

Blair: That's exactly right. The poker school adherents, they're considered to be opposite of the idealist, but they see themselves as a game. This is a game. I identify with that because I think selling is a game too. I'm on record of having said that many times in many places. Selling is a game, the game goes by a name The Polite Battle for Control. What I mean by that is if you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong. Let's not take this too seriously. Let's not get so uptight that we're thinking that we need to show up brilliantly and have exactly the right word. What the poker players here mean is, no, this is a game and there's a different set of rules.

Yes, I'm sure it's fun to them, but

for our benefit here, we're really talking about the idea that they see negotiating as governed by a different set of rules. As long as a tactic is legal and it's not fiduciarily irresponsible, then it's allowed. That's where you get into bluffing, playing chicken, even throwing temper tantrums, thumping the table, all the stuff that drives me nuts.

David: Button again. [chuckles]

Blair: Yes, exactly.

David: Your voice changed when you started talking about that. I realized I do this in a big M&A negotiation where there's tens of millions of dollars at stake, and it's time to, "Okay, this is what I want for my client. Here's the price, here's the terms." Before I share that, I almost always say, "All right, how do you want to play this? How do you think about negotiating? Are we both shooting high and then we're going to work towards the middle or would you rather just save a lot of time and me just tell you what it is?"

Blair: I love that. Do you say that part out loud?

David: Oh, yes, absolutely.

Blair: Yes, I'm a big fan of that approach.

David: That fits my idealist school, but in the back of my mind, I know they're lying and so I'm going to lie too. Now, that's an emotive word. I shouldn't have used lying, but anyway, they'll always say, "Oh, no, let's just get right to the bottom line," and then they'll negotiate from there.

Blair: [chuckles] That's just anchoring, right?

David: I never give them the final thing either, but we both know it's a game. It's just a game.  

Blair: I really like the idea of saying, "Okay, we're going to play poker here, we're going to put our cards on the table and not play poker," even then because what you're doing there is you are signaling that you are willing to go where you need to go. That at the end, we'll jump to the end here, that's what you really need to do when you're negotiating. You might be selling from this idealist school, but the difference between selling and negotiating is you're selling to your prospective client, you're selling to the person with whom you must have a relationship.

As I've said many times before, the sale is the sample of the engagement to follow. You have to show up in the sale the way you want to show up in the engagement. You want to take the lead, but you don't want to be domineering, you want your expertise recognized and valued, but you're testing whether or not you can have a relationship with this person because the relationship is vital.

What changes when we move from selling to negotiating is the introduction of a third party. It's not vital for you to have the same type of relationship with that third party as it is with your client. In fact, I would go so far as to say that third party that you're now negotiating with, it's pretty rare that their goals are aligned with your goals. Their goals aren't even aligned with their colleagues in marketing or product, your client. Your goals are more closely aligned with your client's goals than they are with this third-party negotiator, whether it's procurement, finance, or legal.

David: Yes. I just want to pull this out using different language because this is such an important point. I want to make sure everybody's hearing this. You're selling to one person and you may be negotiating with a different person and so there's room for having two different approaches here. That's essentially what you're saying.

Blair: Yes. I don't know where the line is. There's a certain amount of negotiating that's inherent in selling. That type of negotiating where you're negotiating with the person that you will have a relationship with, you have to be pretty close to the idealist school. You can't sully yourself. What's interesting is when the client starts to sully themselves, when the client starts to play games in that situation, that's reflective of how they're going to behave in the relationship. You both have to model for each other how this relationship is going to work, how you're going to show up, what the dynamics are going to be like.

It's the introduction of the third party-- I made the comment just a minute ago that they're expendable. I'm not saying that you should go into it with that approach. What I'm saying is if you move from the sale to the negotiation and you find yourself with a poker player who's playing games, you don't need to preserve that relationship. Yes, it's nice if you have an open relationship with the procurement person moving forward.

They can do a lot to impair your progress, they can do some things to hurt you, but you're not going to be working together on a day-to-day

basis. It's not absolutely vital that you preserve the relationship. If the party on the other side of the table has demonstrated through their behavior, their approach to negotiating that they don't value the relationship with you, then you shouldn't value the relationship with them. You should get in there and play poker.

David: Yes. If I could twist one phrase you said, so the sale is the sample. What you're also saying is that the buy is also the sample.

Blair: Yes.

David: Pay attention to that too. The first school was idealist where you find yourself. The second, the one we've just been talking about, is the poker school of negotiating. The third one is the pragmatist school.

Blair: Yes, and this is in between. If you read the literature on this, people will refer to themselves as pragmatic idealists or pragmatic poker players, so there are variations in the middle that's a gradation almost. A pragmatist is between these two of an idealist and poker player. They have a more flexible approach that sees the negotiator adjusting their ethics to the context of the negotiating. They're malleable. There's an author of another procurement book who referred to this as the protean negotiator after Proteus, who was a shapeshifter in Greek mythology. That's the idea that you should not only be pragmatic, you should be a bit of a shape shifter and you should be able to move from the idealist school if it's appropriate. I would suggest thinking about how you began the relationship with the negotiator's colleague. You started with the idealist approach, so you're probably coming in with that mindset, but you really do need to be able to change shapes and move quickly to the poker school. A pragmatist is more flexible. Here's the line. They prefer not to deceive, but they believe it's appropriate to mirror back what they're getting from the other side of the table. I'm going to give what I get.

David: Normally, I don't want to torture prospects or suspects.

Blair: Or puppies, but in this case, the puppies started it.

David: Sometimes there's no other way. The idealist, the Poker, the pragmatist school, those three. Is the pragmatist school paying more attention to the negotiating style across the table and that's why they're more adaptable or is it just that it's not about seeing things differently, it's just about a willingness to go in a different direction?

Blair: I think of it this way when I apply my personal lens through it. The pragmatist is an older Blair, more experienced Blair, and the idealist is the younger, inexperienced, who's emotionally triggered. I'm fond of saying, I've been saying this for a little while and I should quit saying it because I don't want to be in the school of negotiating, but I've been saying I'm in the John Wick school of negotiating.

David: [laughs]

Blair: Basically, I am honest and honorable until you kill my dog. Then I murder everybody and burn the building down, even if I happen to be standing in the building. Who wins in that situation? I think I joked in The Post that if I wrote a book on negotiating, it would probably be Getting to Lose Lose. [chuckles]

David: I think this is how I view friendship as well. I give people lots and lots of leash, but at a certain point, it's either all on or all off, right?

Blair: Yes.

David: The question is, do the ethics of selling expertise apply to negotiating? The answer--

Blair: Is no.

David: No?

Blair: Yes. Don't make the mistake that I've made for years in thinking that the ethical standard that you apply or should apply to the sale applies to negotiating when you're negotiating with the third party. It does not. You need to be prepared to change schools, to shift shapes, and go with the flow to mirror back. If this person you're dealing with is going to start playing games, then bring your own games, bring your own list of demands.

David: You just need to be better at it than they are, right? [chuckles]

Blair: Yes.

David: This is why it's crazy to think that in something that has so much impact on your firm, both selling and pricing, which is built on negotiating, it's like you're going in there, you're not going to have any armor, you're not going to have any training, you're not going to think very specifically about how you approach this, and then teach it to everybody on your team. Actually, it ought to be part of the culture. These are the eight things that guide our behavior, the eight things we stand for. I've never heard anybody put anything on there about selling. That would be interesting.

Blair: Yes, that's interesting. Then another line on negotiating, how we throw it all out the window. Maybe we don't throw it out the window. I think we go in high. That's the approach I would advocate. Go in high and be willing to drop down low. If you find yourself in a situation with somebody who's playing games, then be prepared. Bring your own games, bring your own demands, and go get everything you absolutely can.

David: Yes. It's like a player in the NFL or in

soccer or something like that. One of the things you're noting here is that you have to pay very careful attention to both the relationship you're going to have with the client and with, to a lesser extent, the procurement people because not much is going to change after the relationship moves along.

Blair: Yes. I think you get these enlightened procurement people who really their incentives are aligned and they're experienced enough and they have the right temperament where they recognize that the relationship is important. As Lee and I do this other podcast, The 20% Podcast, where we're interviewing procurement people, we're just exposed to more and more who have come around to this way of thinking that the relationship is important. This isn't like buying products or raw materials, widgets, et cetera. If you find yourself in a situation like that, negotiating with somebody like that, then you're probably can be close to the idealist school, you can be pragmatic. If that person values a relationship with you, you can negotiate with them where you both value it equally. You wouldn't prioritize it the way you prioritize a relationship with the end client, but if the relationship is somewhat important to your negotiating opponent, then that's great. Then you should come to the negotiation with the same attitude.

David: I've learned two things here today. I love these conversations where I'm learning something as well. The first is that it's a game, you can be different things in different settings. The other is to really make it clear in your own mind that you're negotiating with two different parties for two different reasons and so on. It's been very interesting.

Blair: Yes. I learned a lot writing it and I've enjoyed talking about it. Thanks.

David: As you've told me before when I called you up upset one time about something, I don't remember what it was, somebody pressed one of my buttons, you said, "It's just data. Don't take it personally." [chuckles]

Blair: Yes.

David: Didn't make me feel better at the time, but I thought it was a good line.

Blair: It's advice I got from a mentor years ago. It applies in sales. It especially applies in selling. I think the best friend of a negotiator is the line, let me think about it and I'll get back to you. Anytime you find yourself emotionally triggered, just very calm, as calmly as you can, just say, "Let me think about it. I'll get back to you." Then you can log out of the Zoom call and throw your tantrum, go for a run, get it out of your system, and then think clearly and respond calmly.

David: [chuckles] Instead of, "Let me think about it and get back to you," what you really mean is, "You have really pissed me off. If I tell you what I think right now, you are not going to want to hear it, so let's wait and I'll get back to you."

Blair: [chuckles]

David: That's too long.

Blair: Yes.

David: Thank you, Blair.

Blair: Thanks, David.